11-23-2012, 02:46 PM
(11-23-2012, 09:41 AM)Confused Wrote:
(11-23-2012, 09:26 AM)Ruth Wrote:(11-23-2012, 09:09 AM)Confused Wrote:(11-23-2012, 12:24 AM)Ruth Wrote: Why this post, Confused?
I would have looked the other way out of primarily fear of retribution.
I would need to understand why the moonlighting rule existed in the first place before I could make a decision. Unless I missed something, the article doesn't give that information.
I think it says it is against company policy.
Yes, that's all I remembered it saying. But I'm wondering why it is against company policy? I have encountered rules that were originally created for a good reason, but that have become outdated, and people started ignoring the rule because it just didn't make sense any longer. In those cases instead of reporting someone for breaking the rule, it might be a better idea to work to get the rule changed to something more reasonable.
It might be that the no moonlighting rule was based on employees being too tired from moonlighting to do their job properly. And if the job required a certain level of alertness (say in the case of a driver, or equipment operator or something) the rule might make sense.